Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2053 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The third argument is that the Assembly passed this legislation in 1996 and it became effective on 1 January 1997. At that time the Assembly decided to impose the $30 penalty on all people coming before the court after that date who had committed crimes. It was, in effect, made retrospective at that time. The scrutiny of bills committee did not draw attention to any concern about retrospectivity at that stage. I think it is fair to suggest that today there are different standards or different rules being applied in the committee than was the case during the time of Professor Whalan's stewardship of that committee.

My advice in respect of this matter is that-as the committee itself notes-the levy is quite small and does not, in substance, bear the character of a punishment. Therefore, retrospectively imposing an additional $20 on somebody who might have committed a crime hardly amounts to a serious retrospective imposition of a heavy penalty on that person.

The main argument I use against this amendment is that it is not clear. It will not be clear to a magistrate or a judge at what rate to impose the levy. In those circumstances, it should not be supported.

Question put:

The Assembly voted-

Ayes, 6  	Noes, 11

Mr Berry  	Ms Carnell
Mr Corbell  	Mr Cornwell
Mr Hargreaves  	Mr Hird
Mr Quinlan  	Mr Humphries
Mr Stanhope  	Mr Kaine
Mr Wood  	Mr Moore
		Mr Osborne
		Mr Rugendyke
		Mr Smyth
		Mr Stefaniak
		Ms Tucker

Question so resolved in the negative.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (6.21): I move amendment No 2:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .